Christopher Hitchens, "God is not Great" author, is not really an atheist
Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 08:01 PM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Exorcism of my inner Peter King
- Gas question: why give Ireland's enormous wealth away? the Norweigan alternative
- Bashing the Irish -- a break neck run down on Ireland's history of betrayal
- Stephen Fry to appear on Gaelic soap opera Ros na Rún
- Stolkholm Syndrome infects Dublin
Archives

In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Christopher Hitchens objectively describes his terminal illness, and the prospect of a painful death.
This moving conversation is conducted as though under strict orders against sentimentality. It is a mark of his integrity, perhaps, that Hitchens would flay his own circumstance with the coldness he employed to disembowel Mother Theresa.
Christopher Hitchens is known for his war with those amongst us who purport to have special knowledge, unreasonably revealed to them by God. (I am not such a person.)
Hitchens is not an atheist, however. His agnosticism often seems to undo God, but he is admittedly incapable of doing so, merely limited as he is to undoing the legitimacy of divine spokespersons. He reveals his limits in this interview.
As he deals with the awful burden of esophagal cancer spreading through his lymph nodes, he is concerned about rumors of a death bed confession. He is trying to make clear to us what he believes before he is incapable of doing so later-on.
Despite that over-arching political concern, Hitchens' first real philosophical assumption is that the universe exceeds in complexity, full human understanding. And so, uncertainty is inescapable. He did not discover the principle, he must concede to it. He also concedes the possibility of a prime mover.
Atheism is too certain a position for Hitchens, author of the badly titled book God is Not Great. Badly, because it is too declarative, and certain. Where God is a wide-open term used to short-hand the ineffably complex universe, calling it "not great" is the equivalent of saying life is a half-empty glass. He just does not have access to enough information to make that determination.
Just because it's ineffable, doesn't mean people don't try to talk about it. God is the short-hand many use to describe
a) the anthropomorphized tribal father that made "all"
b) or simply, that terribly complex "all."
Either way, "all" is too big for any human head, even one like Hitchens' to wrap around it. So how could he know if it is great or not? If Hitchens can not know all, he cannot know that nature's symmetry prohibits underlying intelligence or even overall "personality."
In the interview it's clear, he's unclear. He is with the uncertain.
Hitchens is determined above-all-else to expose the religious who claim to be representatives of God, as charlatans. He sees these men and women in their stupefying costumes as really "absolutely nude," full of certainty when there is none.
He recognizes no one that has discovered God themselves; nor anyone that has ever received revelation where he has not. To do so would create a class of mammals bearing warrants from God to control less evolved homo sapiens. It is this unsubstantiated nightmare that he holds-out against, nobly on behalf of all he will leave behind.
Hitchens mission against these taxing shepherds subverts his acceptance of new possibilities, however. He cannot know beforehand, what his death will or will not teach him.
I hope Hitchens recovers by whatever miracle or medicine. And I hope for Hitchens that he knows he is loved by the universe, as is my hunch.
53 comments
leftbehind81 | Aug 17, 2010, 10:13 PM EDT
God in western society is in not a "wide-open" term. God is a very unambiguous entity, he has a definition that has been defined for centuries. Namely that he is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. He wrote a few books, if you disobey him (such as masturbating) he will condemn you to eternal burning, and if you do obey him he will let you stay at his really cool house in the clouds. But he decided to tell you what he wants you to do through a bunch of old guys in Rome. You know this is the truth, because they said so, and of course it is impossible that they would either lie or have no idea what in the world they are talking about. And how could they get anything wrong, I mean they are well known for being incredibly competent.
This is not an eastern concept of a higher power such as karma or the Tao. And i don't know about Hitchens, but personally if I was ever only told of the eastern idea of what we call God (they would not call this god), I probably would not be an "atheist".
And let me just say, i think it is a offensive to question someones faith. If you were a catholic, and someone looked at your beliefs and said "nope, your actually Jewish." you would be offended. Not because there is anything wrong with being Jewish, but instead because you spent a lot of time and effort developing your catholic faith. It is the same way with being Atheist. We spend a lot of time developing our stance and opinions on God and to simply to dismiss how we choose to identify ourselves is condescending.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 15, 2010, 06:36 PM EDT
You can't hold a disbelief without believing something instead. Atheism is the belief that there is "no god" or "nothing" to explain the ultimate questions of philosophy. Theism is the belief that "god" answers those questions.
Report abuse
samlehman | Aug 15, 2010, 01:24 PM EDT
Defintion via OED: atheism - noun - disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.
Report abuse
Tautologous | Aug 15, 2010, 11:02 AM EDT
@Bill Killpatrick:
To be an atheist is to not believe in gods?
So theism is an atheist?
Rocks are atheists.
AIDS is an atheist.
Hate is atheist.
All of them do not believe in a god.
It is people like you and Cline who so misrepresent atheism it is a joke. Atheism is the belief there is no god. I am an atheist.
Not believing in god is not anything at all. No such thing exists. You are calling atheism something that does not exist. A fatal error of logic.
Cline has no clue about atheism and neither do you. Logical buffoons 100%.
Report abuse
2BorNot2B | Aug 14, 2010, 02:11 PM EDT
@Bill Killpatrick: "To be an atheist is to not believe in gods. The burden of proof has always been with the other guys." -- Really? If that is the case, and atheism purports to believe in science as a 'sort of proof' that God does not exist, then this 'science-god' is indeed a very inadequate proof since most scientists know that science itself is continuously evolving, that it does not by any means have even a fraction of the answers and that if they, as scientists, know anything is that they know KNOTHING! Further, and most important, it is scientists and atheists who in view of the misteries and wonders of creation cannot possibly have a random origin, and have not proven the non-existence of God. There is more evidence of God in the simple observable creation than the results of human devised ingenuity or invention have produced. In fact, the chasm between these two is so great as to not even be quantifiable. Therefore, the onus of proving that God does not exist is really on those who deny Him, not the other way around.
Report abuse
2BorNot2B | Aug 14, 2010, 01:48 PM EDT
Sez BrendanP: "Cursing a sick man or worse, gloating at it his condition, must be sinful according to some religious system," -- Your concern for the 'sick man' is touching Mr. BPK, really bordering on a sort of Mother-Teresian religious humanitarianism. To atone for the 'sin of gloating' (there was NO cursing involved, as your atheist sympathies might have led you to believe), I will flog myself 20 times; that is as soon as you do likewise to atone for the way in which Hitch, your hero, mercilessly eviscerated a godly woman who never, ever, even knew he existed.--
Continues Brendan: '..nothing chases a mind to atheism more effectively than advocates of God.'-- And I'd say, nothing chases a mind to God more effectively than the murderous rampages of militant atheists who manage to acquire even a small amount of power and then try to forcefully impose their vacuous and dead-inducing philosophy on others, either by raw military means, or by the pen, as in the case of Voltaire -who was infinitely smarter, funnier and of higher intellect than Hitch. -- I assure you, there have been more casualties of atheism and more people praying to God, begging for their lives, and wondering how to regain their self-respect as a result of attacks from men and women who not only rejected the idea of God but tried to impose their way of thinking. -- " We all live in uncertainty and should respect our common ignorance." -- Oh that all those atheist beasts (and we all know who they are), that have littered their path with millions of corpses, victims of their murderous prejudice and authoritariansm, might have listened to your wise counsel!
Report abuse
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 10:36 AM EDT
You have caught me. My name is not really Mavis Pike. Actually, to be fair Keanso, you are prepared to reply to criticism, even when it's as ill-tempered as mine. So you deserve respect. I grudgingly grant you said commodity.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 10:25 AM EDT
The book is only anti-clerical. I have little problem with it. The video is anti-clerical, but then reveals more than that simple posture. In the video Hitchens himself discusses the uncertainty principle. That is what prompted my short response, not his book. If that is irrelevant, tell it to Hitchens--he brought it up, not me. I'm glad my little letter has inspired you "MavisPike." Please now watch Hitchens interview closely, and listen to his own discussion of uncertainty.
Report abuse
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 10:06 AM EDT
You keep saying the "uncertainty principle" as if that phrase was in any way relevant to this conversation. The uncertainty principle states that (among other properties) the momentum and position of a sub-atomic particle can not simultaneously be identified. It's got nothing to do with the debate on the existence of God. You then say that " His anti-clerical book and its title would confuse readers into believing Hitchens had somehow resolved the uncertainty principle." Nobody who had actually read the book would be in any way confused. It is possible to argue without insulting you but -- what with your violin and your pathetic desire to be Irish -- you just make too appealing a target.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 14, 2010, 09:50 AM EDT
His book is much more an anti-clerical work, than a philosophical one. I am more interested in his philosophical stance on first-cause. He speaks to this issue in the interview, and allows for first-cause, for "god" in the largest sense. This is what I was writing about. His anti-clerical book and its title would confuse readers into believing Hitchens had somehow resolved the uncertainty principle. Of course he had not, as he discusses in the above interview. Is it possible to discuss this with without insulting me? Or has Hitchens only taught his followers how to argue by personal attack?
Report abuse
MavisPike | Aug 14, 2010, 07:07 AM EDT
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse this article of being offensive. After all, Hitchens is a big boy and, if he had a beef with a gravely ill man, he would continue to put in the boot. The piece is, however, the sort of confused, pretentious tripe you'd expect a half-bright, fully-lazy high school student to cough-up. Rather than presenting a critical analysis of the book -- better than Dawkins's more pompous tome, I feel -- Keane offers a worthless analysis of the title alone. That's understandable enough. What with his fiddle and all, Keane must be a busy man and it's easier to read a title than a whole book. But the piece doesn't even work on those debased terms. How can you consider the phrase "God is Not Great" without pondering its relationship to the Arabic phrase Allāhu Akbar? Those words, often bellowed by suicide bombers, translate as "God is Great". Hitchens's book dismisses that particular God with great efficiency. You should try reading it some time, fiddle boy.
Report abuse
BillKilpatrick | Aug 13, 2010, 11:18 PM EDT
This article is a slanted, inaccurate, summary of Hitchens' interview. Why wouldn't a curious reader simply read - or watch - the actual interview rather than buy into this mush? Atheists don't have to know the unknowable to be atheists. To be an atheist is to not believe in gods. The burden of proof has always been with the other guys.
Report abuse
xyolist | Aug 13, 2010, 11:01 PM EDT
Really, really...another rant from, yet another, pedantic sciolist who can't let go of childish reminiscences (Sunday school indoctrination)...grow up Brendan the Easter Bunny does not really bring you the eggs!
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 13, 2010, 10:47 PM EDT
Tautologous: the question that atheism purports to answer is the ultimate question of any logically concluded investigation of any causality. It is absolutely a thing, it is everything.
Report abuse
53 Comments
Report abuse